UCL or Berkeley

Student Lounge International Students
21

<p>
[quote]
lol y are u aggressively hammering a guy whos making a case for Berkeley over UCL and whos stating that rankings are bs instead of directing your comments at the dude

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was aggressively hammering the THES rankings through you because to me they are so patently absurd. </p>

<p>
[quote]
and regarding Berkeley's reputation in asia, I have my doubts as to that as an asian living IN asia....i tink all this hooha comes from asians living in cal because thats the school most of them go to

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point of posting the Shanghai rankings had little to do with reputations in Asia. I was expressingly foremostly that, ranked according to its objective standards, Stanford AND Berkeley are rated much higher in that ranking. And the rhyme or reason is there irrespective of whether one agrees or not with their conclusions.</p>

<p>As someone who has lived in Asia for a long time, my perception is different.</p>

22

<p>dude i'm against the THES, so by hammering me not only do you NOT hammer thru to the THES, but you're inevitably boosting its credibility</p>

<p>and you continue to allude to the ARWU rankings as if they were some definitive indicator or bastion of objectivity and proof....just because they use some hard stats (no. of papers published? this is the biggest joke of all, quantity of research papers published varies VERY greatly across disciplines, majority of them are concentrated in med and biosci, not to mention quality, geographical slant and biasedness towards the english langauge) doesnt make them ANY less bull than the THES, both can be disregarded totally....the latter engages in self-laudation, the former uses factors that has little relevance to repute and quality, and Berkeley ranked 4th? no offence its a great school, but with a overcrowded campus, lack of funds, low selectivity, and an undergrad system thats plagued with huge class sizes and TAs, it arnt gonna convince anyone</p>

<p>i lived in asia ALL MY LIFE....and i'll be more specific, according to friends in Aus,Taiwan,PRC,Malaysia,Spore (and i'm fully aware that they are not representative of any majority consensus), Berkeley is a good school, but its no where near the elites, and i'm sorry to have to break the brutal truth to you</p>

23

<p>I think the THES ranking is BS and the ARWU is even bigger crap. They have Chicago above Yale and Oxford. UCSF and UCSD over UMich...they must be kidding. I also live in Asia and Berkeley is a hell lot more well known than UCL. </p>

<p>@lOngbOWmeN Berkeley might not be on par with the elites for undergrad, but for grad school I think its definitely in the top 3 or 4.</p>

24

<p>
[quote]
dude i'm against the THES, so by hammering me not only do you NOT hammer thru to the THES, but you're inevitably boosting its credibility

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh Longbowmen, give it up. I was actually just being nice in my last post. What you wrote was pretty stupid and contradictory. And I'll just end this posting with this one.</p>

<p>My point was that rankings at the very least should have a transparent methodology that leads to predictable outcomes. You agreed with this, but also didn't agree with it -- and entirely contradicted yourself. That's what I pointed out.</p>

<p>
[quote]
and Berkeley ranked 4th? no offence its a great school, but with a overcrowded campus, lack of funds, low selectivity, and an undergrad system thats plagued with huge class sizes and TAs, it arnt gonna convince anyone

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yeah, yeah, yeah, Berkeley's got all these huge problems. It's all really obvious -- until you actually compare it to several other top research universities and realize it's really not that different in terms of a lot of the things you mentioned. Yes, overall student selectivity is lower compared to the top echelon, but it's still got a big swath of Ivy League caliber students, yes it's big, etc.</p>

<p>The Shanghai rankings are really, really narrow and focused on things that are to a large degree not that important for college selection. That is the second time I have said that. Re-read it. I would agree that they focus on things probably overall very marginally relevant. But at least the ranking says what it ranks with a predictable outcome. And by its standards -- which focus on a narrow measure of overall (read graduate) academic output, the rankings fall as they stand.</p>

<p>I am done here. Fire away.</p>

<p>We've gone far afield from the OP's concerns.</p>

25

<p>^ lol or perhaps being the imbecile u are, you were just construing my statements in a stupid manner =)</p>

<p>and which part of my comments even lent any credence to your nonsense of "rankings at the very least should have a transparent methodology that leads to predictable outcomes"? i said, rankings are bull, BUT its a fact that laymen refer to it (which is true since majority of the human pop arnt privileged enough to make it into the top 20 and hence dont bother to do some decent research on the quality, experience repute of the colleges therein)</p>

<p>and to the OP, i still say choose Berkeley over UCL, the fact that insistent hawks like Bedhead might be heading there doesnt diminish the quality of its programs and its repute</p>

26

<p>not that i really knew what it's like studying at either of these 2 colleges, but my first thought about this was:
how can you compare these two options just by their academic reputation? you'll have to LIVE where you go for an important period of your life. someone already mentioned, that there is a big difference eg berkeley has big campus, london does not. now forget about your career for a moment and ask yourself what you imagine your student life to look like</p>

27

<p>the THES rankings are complete bull IMHO. the ARWU rankings are more relevant for someone considering graduate school due to the methodology used to generate them....just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>to the OP - go to Berkeley</p>

28

<p>
[QUOTE]
not that i really knew what it's like studying at either of these 2 colleges, but my first thought about this was:
how can you compare these two options just by their academic reputation? you'll have to LIVE where you go for an important period of your life. someone already mentioned, that there is a big difference eg berkeley has big campus, london does not. now forget about your career for a moment and ask yourself what you imagine your student life to look like

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Well said. I think that you can become equally successful (career wise) by going to either of the universities (although some selection will need to be made based on whether you'd like to work in the UK or US), but what really distinguishes these colleges from each other is their student life.</p>

<p>Perhaps talk to some students who are already studying at Berkeley/UCL and ask them about the general scene, student life etc. and see which one you prefer. Even make a trip to one of the universities if you have the time.</p>

29

<p>I'd say Berkeley will give you a better education than UCL in most areas by some margin, although tbh practically everyone here myself included has their own perceptions formed by hearsay and er, rankings...</p>

<p>Anyway, spend per student at Berkeley must be several times that of UCL, so unless they're all complete retards they should be able to provide a much better education than UCL.</p>

30

<p>I think 100 percent of UK citizens who had no attachment to Oxford would say Cambridge is more highly thought of.</p>

<p>Don't know how to quote that with the box^</p>

<p>Definitely not the case. Maybe a majority, but certainly not 100%. Oxford is generally better at social sciences/humanities/arts, and Cambridge generally at natural/mathematical sciences/engineering etc. Cambridge probably does have a slight edge over Oxford academically, but Oxford on the whole produces more well rounded graduates in terms of extra-curricular etc.</p>

31

<p>^ Oh, I see. It's just that I always thought that Oxford tended to be seen as the "better of the two", but maybe I was wrong. Perhaps it's just the fact that Oxford has a slight advantage in terms of international recognition (although I, myself generally regarded Cambridge as the better institution in terms of academics. But it's quite difficult to establish which is "the better one" because they've both got their stronger areas, and they're both excellent schools!).</p>

<p>I'm looking to study engineering at Cambridge. It'll be very competitive, but that's life...</p>

32

<p>haha i think Camb has a slightly higher profile in Asia due to its stronger sciences and the A-levels, while Oxford is more well-known in the US due to ihe rhodes scholarships and its arts-inclination (PPE, Literature etc.)</p>

33

<p>this thread has turned out to be the debate on the rankings. if we are to look into the rankings more objectively, let's consider the following.</p>

<p>1) all three rankings have different bases. usnews rankings are totally us based; only and exclusively us colleges. overall has been a pretty good yardstick for a couple of decades. thes rankings essentially based on peers reviews (overrepresented and thus reflecting assessments/perspectives by europe, australia and asia but underrepresented by us). sjtu creteria mainly focused on acdemadic output, papers/citations, nobel prizes etc.</p>

<p>they all have strengths and flaws. we should pick and choose the strengths and leave out the flaws when making decisions. if we want to consider the us colleges, use usnews as a starter but also alongside review thes and sjtu rankings to compare notes. for example, uchicago is consistently ranked top 10 in sjtu, about top 10 in thes, and coming up in top 10 by usnews. berkeley ranked very high in sjtu but around 20s in usnews (methodology of which favors ivies/east elite schools to a degree).</p>

<p>2) we need to consider different teaching/learning philosophies between us and uk more objectively. us emphasizes on giving students more liberal arts education, wanting students to explore more options/breadth and then to go to areas of concentration/majors so that students will graduate more well-rounded, left brain/right brain approach. uk goes to areas of concentration/majors from day one, emphasizes special fields and thus is less flexible in terms of course choices and switching majors.</p>

<p>3) since all rankings have flaws and are biased to a certain degree, more so in thes wolrds top universities rankings, while no rankings at all on outside us by usnews, we have to factor these into factor when comparing notes. if usnews starts world rankings, which i'm sure one day they will, all rankings then will be more comparable. in that case, world top universities rankings will be based from us, uk, and asia, which will give students more balanced views.</p>

<p>as for berkeley vs ucl, berkeley is more of an academic powerhouse in overall education in almost all fields, engineering, social sciences, business etc. ucl is well respected in uk, less known about the elites on worldwide scale. only top 4 from uk have among the world prestige status, say at top 20-30 worldwide i.e. oxbridge, followed by imperial and lse. i'm not saying uk schools are any less in academic strengths; colleges like ucl, edinburgh, warwick, bristol, and bath are definitely on par in my honest opinion with top 20-30 us schools but they're all underranked. 5-10 years will be different. don't forget rankings pretty much are influenced by and thus reflect the thoughts and viewpoints of the peers in the surveys during their college days. that's human nature.</p>

<p>so go ucl, if you like uk system, it's top 5 in uk, after which you may consider us for grad schools. if you like us educational philosophy, berkeley is a top school (which i really think is underrated by usnews bc of methodology and creteria). berkeley has flaws in terms of class size, students/faculty ratio, diversity (more than 90% in-state and more than 40% asians), weaker attention to undergrad. otherwise it should be in top 10 or at least top 15 in us.</p>

34

<p>To qwerty2</p>

<p>As a student studying Chemistry at Oxford, I'd definitely say the reputation of Berkeley in chemical world is much better than UCL's, very much due to Berkeley's strength in Grad School. But I have to say, UK's undergrad is generally very good for those who want to SPECIALISE in the beginning of their college study. But the chemistry school in UCL is probably just outside of top five in UK. When I applied to chemistry schools in UK, I put oxbridge, ICL, bristol over UCL. So in your case I would put Berkeley over UCL if I were in your situation.</p>